[WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

[WJhonson at aol.com]

<<n a message dated 1/5/2009 6:57:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
cbeckhorn at fastmail.fm writes:

We have  always permitted the use of academic research articles published 
in  peer-reviewed journals. These are crucial both for the results they  
contain and for their link to the historical record. The difficulty is  
that these sources have to be considered "secondary sources" in order to  
mesh our best practices with the literal wording of NOR. But many  people
like to consider them "primary sources". >>
 
Our purpose in writing an encyclopedia, as opposed to a "Today's New For  
You" sheet, is that we synthesize the  "current state of belief" in system  A.  
In our articles on the Neutrino, we present the current state of belief  in the 
Neutrino community on the properties of the Neutrino.
 
We do not present each new paper published.  We can however, once a  
secondary source has stated that "the neutrino has no mass..." present a summary  of a 
new paper which states "however a new experiment by Smith & Wesson has  
recently shown...."
 
When a secondary source brings forth a statement, it can be balanced by a  
primary source.
What would be wrong would be to present a brand-new claim directly from a  
primary source, which no secondary source mention whatsoever.
 
"The Neutrino has no mass.  In other news, it's been recently found  that the 
neutrino is made of Spam."
 
That would be an incorrect use of sources, as we deliberately categorized  
them.
Peer-review or not.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 


**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)